Ron Paul will be on the Daily Show tonight!

I wish Ron Paul would not always be 'high ground' like when he went soft on Perry for Perry putting his hands on Paul, which is assault, legally.
The man is up against devil evil, re. the NWO. But I guess thats just his personality then, what can ya do.

For those that were not able to catch it, the Daily Show website and another one of Paul's websites (I believe) will have the episode up shortly.
Plus the interview went longer than the time allowed and the full interview will be up on the Daily Show website to.

Nice one from Stewart in the first segment. The MSM has a problem with him in general, not just because he's consistent.

The rest was cool but kind of boring. It seemed even the audience was a little stunned at the end as they didn't hoot and holler his response, which
had happened earlier.

I think Americans are just stunned by common sense, which Ron Paul speaks. We are pretty stupid as a whole, I've seen. They have tried to give us
Palin for Veep and now Bachmann for President, really? I have nothing against women but I do have a thing against stupid people, ESPECIALLY if they
are running for a pretty big job such as this.

We shall see. Maybe the American people can awaken from their slumber, it's a deep one to be sure.

Originally posted by simone50m
I wish Ron Paul would not always be 'high ground' like when he went soft on Perry for Perry putting his hands on Paul, which is assault, legally.
The man is up against devil evil, re. the NWO. But I guess thats just his personality then, what can ya do.

I find it highly ironic you're complaining about Ron Paul being TOO moral, compared to someone like Rick Perry or Mitt Romney who are giant sleaze
bags.

Crap I missed it? asdjkladfngkljadnflgkjadfnsg. To the above poster, if they cut out parts of the interview they ought to be ashamed, you have to
remember they are an institution/business and they have a stake in keeping the status quo going as much as any other outlet of "news" or information,
or news-comedy for that matter. I don't even want to watch the interview now..

edit on 9/27/2011 by smarterthanyou because: (no reason
given)

edit: then again, you can only fit so much on TV unfortunately its a 30 minute show, with the last 5 minutes reserved for the interview and then
another 3-4 minutes of commercials. I'm surprised they had any real time to talk at all, no wonder all the juicy stuff was on the web after the show
was over. That's typically what happens on the daily show.

When Stewart made the assertion that the free market regulations are only accountable to shareholders and that in the current system at least we can
vote for representatives that make the regulations he was entirely wrong and Ron could of really hit him hard but let him off the hook.

In our current structure most regulations are authored by bureaucratic morons who were simply hired not voted for.

Also, in a free market regulations may first come from the corporations but those corporations will not be around very long if the people decide they
don't want to buy their products because of poor regulations. In our current system, corporations are accountable to a few government bureaucrats in
a free market corporations are actually accountable to their customers, AKA, the people.

Our current system puts a middle man between the people and the corporations and the middleman is supposed to act in our interest but instead they act
in the interest of the corporations.

In a free market there is no middleman, if a corporation sucks (think monsanto, etc...) the government cannot cover for them or write laws that allow
them to stay in operation, the people have the direct power to end that corporation and set a strong example for any other corporations that do
likewise.

The free market does not ask corporations to regulate themselves and allow share holders to rape the people, it is the exact opposite, in a free
market the people can hold their corporate feet to the fire without being hindered by laws that allow pollution, corruption and the like.

Our current system legalizes bad corporations, in a free market the people would be in control, not legislators who legalize bad behavoir and thus
make it "OK"

If Howard came out for Ron Paul, it would scare me. In fact it would cause me to worry and do some more research. Truly I believe Stern's support
would gain him votes from those who want to see Howard get a # from Kacey Jordan, or those that find the endless repetition of the nickname Baba Booey
hilarious, but it would prevent him from being elected.

In the same way I would truly like to see Jesse Ventura in the VP position in the White House, but his presence on the ticket would just make it much
harder for Ron Paul to win the election.

For weeks now everyone has bemoaned the lack of coverage by the MSM, but I feel that this is the way it has to be. If the MSM did jump up immediately
and give Ron the coverage he deserves it would be a sign that we are on the wrong track. If the same thing happened in the Nixon days it would not
mean this, but in the role the "purchased" Media has assumed these days, I think most of us would be shocked if they did the right thing. So much
so that it would even prove things were not that bad.

No, the fact that the MSM is not covering Ron Paul is just more confirmation that we need him badly.

I wish Ron Paul would not always be 'high ground' like when he went soft on Perry for Perry putting his hands on Paul, which is assault, legally.
The man is up against devil evil, re. the NWO. But I guess thats just his personality then, what can ya do.

Have to differ on this one. We have had all the underhanded candidates we need for the rest of our lives. IMO Ron has to take to high ground in
order to win. Let's just hope enough American's can see this through the prescription fog that most of them walk around in.

Think about it, if Ron weren't affixed to the high ground they would have been able to find something legitimate to attack him with by now. I for
one am glad they haven't, it shows me that this vote will not be wasted.

When Stewart made the assertion that the free market regulations are only accountable to shareholders and that in the current system at least we can
vote for representatives that make the regulations he was entirely wrong and Ron could of really hit him hard but let him off the hook.

In our current structure most regulations are authored by bureaucratic morons who were simply hired not voted for.

Also, in a free market regulations may first come from the corporations but those corporations will not be around very long if the people decide they
don't want to buy their products because of poor regulations.

In our current system, corporations are accountable to a few government bureaucrats in a free market corporations are actually accountable to their
customers, AKA, the people.

Our current system puts a middle man between the people and the corporations and the middleman is supposed to act in our interest but instead they act
in the interest of the corporations.

In a free market there is no middleman, if a corporation sucks (think monsanto, etc...) the government cannot cover for them or write laws that allow
them to stay in operation, the people have the direct power to end that corporation and set a strong example for any other corporations that do
likewise.

The free market does not ask corporations to regulate themselves and allow share holders to rape the people, it is the exact opposite, in a free
market the people can hold their corporate feet to the fire without being hindered by laws that allow pollution, corruption and the like.

Our current system legalizes bad corporations, in a free market the people would be in control, not legislators who legalize bad behavoir and thus
make it "OK"

To add to the above;

For the first hundred years or so of our Country, if someone wanted to create a corporation they were only allowed to do so if they could show that
they were operating in the public interest, and then they would only be granted the charter for ten years, or for the term of a certain project. Once
this term expired they had to show again that they were operating in the public interest or the corporation was not renewed.

Stupid rule huh? Rockefeller thought so to, and look what he owns/controls/influences now. Okay class can you say Monopoly? No Johnny not the
Milton Bradley game.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.